Risk Prediction of Emergency Department Visits in Patients With Lung Cancer Using Machine Learning: Retrospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with lung cancer are among the most frequent visitors to emergency departments due to cancer-related problems, and the prognosis for those who seek emergency care is dismal. Given that patients with lung cancer frequently visit health care facilities for treatment or follow-up, the ability to predict emergency department visits based on clinical information gleaned from their routine visits would enhance hospital resource utilization and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study proposed a machine learning-based prediction model to identify risk factors for emergency department visits by patients with lung cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of patients with lung cancer diagnosed at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, a tertiary general hospital in South Korea, between January 2010 and December 2017. The primary outcome was an emergency department visit within 30 days of an outpatient visit. This study developed a machine learning-based prediction model using a common data model. In addition, the importance of features that influenced the decision-making of the model output was analyzed to identify significant clinical factors. RESULTS: The model with the best performance demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.73 in its ability to predict the attendance of patients with lung cancer in emergency departments. The frequency of recent visits to the emergency department and several laboratory test results that are typically collected during cancer treatment follow-up visits were revealed as influencing factors for the model output. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed a machine learning-based risk prediction model using a common data model and identified influencing factors for emergency department visits by patients with lung cancer. The predictive model contributes to the efficiency of resource utilization and health care service quality by facilitating the identification and early intervention of high-risk patients. This study demonstrated the possibility of collaborative research among different institutions using the common data model for precision medicine in lung cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".